论文部分内容阅读
2011年《若干意见》进一步明确了侵犯著作权罪的定罪量刑标准,但《若干意见》在对侵犯著作权罪的解释中仍然存在着主客观方面的纠结,立法层面的规范纠结必将使得立法意图无法实现。解开纠结的路径应为:在主观方面,提高网络信息服务提供者的审查义务,即只要网络信息服务提供者在他人上传侵权作品的网站上直接或者间接收取费用,就推定其明知他人上传的作品侵权并利用;在客观方面,将“利用他人上传的侵权作品”涵盖在“发行”的外延中。
Several Opinions in 2011 further clarify the standards of conviction and sentencing for crimes of copyright infringement. However, the “Several Opinions” still have the subjective and objective aspects in the explanation of the crime of copyright infringement. The normative tangle of legislation will not make the legislative intention impossible achieve. The way to solve the tangled problem is to subjectively improve the obligation of censorship of network information service providers, that is, as long as the network information service provider charges directly or indirectly on the website where other people upload infringing works, it is presumed that the network information service provider knows that others upload The works are infringed and exploited; objectively, the use of “other infringing works uploaded by others” is covered in the extension of “distribution ”.